Difference between revisions of "Talk:Network configuration"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Udev rule for static interface naming: talk point done)
m (Static network service: removed closed discussion)
 
(85 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Set host name/IP==
+
== Wired network configuration ==
Shouldn't the hosts file include the local static IP address and computer name along with the loopback version?
+
- [[User:KitchM|KitchM]] 02:54, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
+
:Does anybody have more info on this? - [[User:Aaahaaap|Aaahaaap]] 11:22, 2 November 2009 (EST)
+
::I sure wish someone did. - [[User:KitchM|KitchM]] 18:43, 2 November 2009 (EST)
+
  
==Troubleshooting Ping==
+
The introduction states:
The section entitled Troubleshooting should probably include a section to address the problem of ping not working correctly.
+
:"This page explains how to set up a wired connection to a network. If you need to set up wireless networking see the Wireless network configuration page."
- [[User:KitchM|KitchM]] 02:36, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
+
So, should this page be renamed to '''Wired network configuration'' ? Though in an ideal world, both Wired and Wireless configuration pages would be merged to reduce duplication, and move subtopics such as Troubleshooting to subpages ... -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 14:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  
== Needs cleanup ==
+
:I don't really mind the current state, i.e. [[Wireless network configuration]] building on top of [[Network configuration]] (with a small overlap in [[Wireless_network_configuration#Check_the_driver_status]]). Otherwise there would have to be a "Network configuration" page and "Wired" and "Wireless" subpages, but what content from the current [[Network configuration]] is specific to wired connections? I think only [[Network_configuration#Device_Driver]] (which is easy to generalize) and [[Network_configuration#Troubleshooting]]. On the other hand most of the content in [[Wireless network configuration]] is unique to wireless devices, so IMO it is more natural to have just 2 pages instead of 3. Maybe the introduction should be modified instead? -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 
+
The hostname portion fails to explain whether or not the quotation marks around the name is required.  The next example does not have them.  Either way, it must be explained.
+
 
+
We are left with another question; is it listed in hosts under the loopback address only, or also included in the standard IP address?
+
 
+
Under IP Aliasing we are missing the explanation of what it is and why one would use it.
+
 
+
Regarding the TCP window scaling, what does the following phrase mean:
+
"Or you can try to remove one of your RAM sticks (yes, sir)."
+
 
+
Let's clean this up, everyone.
+
 
+
Thanks. - [[User:KitchM|KitchM]] 22:38, 27 November 2009 (EST)
+

Latest revision as of 20:07, 24 November 2015

Wired network configuration

The introduction states:

"This page explains how to set up a wired connection to a network. If you need to set up wireless networking see the Wireless network configuration page."

So, should this page be renamed to 'Wired network configuration ? Though in an ideal world, both Wired and Wireless configuration pages would be merged to reduce duplication, and move subtopics such as Troubleshooting to subpages ... -- Alad (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really mind the current state, i.e. Wireless network configuration building on top of Network configuration (with a small overlap in Wireless_network_configuration#Check_the_driver_status). Otherwise there would have to be a "Network configuration" page and "Wired" and "Wireless" subpages, but what content from the current Network configuration is specific to wired connections? I think only Network_configuration#Device_Driver (which is easy to generalize) and Network_configuration#Troubleshooting. On the other hand most of the content in Wireless network configuration is unique to wireless devices, so IMO it is more natural to have just 2 pages instead of 3. Maybe the introduction should be modified instead? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)